Overblown Religious Myths: The Crusades

By: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano

The 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven depicts the peaceful co-existence of Christianity and Islam around the time of the Crusades, as conveyed by the gentlemanly terms between King Baldwin IV and Saladin. This harmony was threatened by the anti-Muslim Knights Templar which were led by the villains Guy de Lusignan, the future king of Jerusalem, and Raynald of Chatillon. Although the Cambridge historian Jonathan Riley-Smith deems this movie as fictional¹, the notion that the Crusaders were absolutely evil people is shared by many to this day. In the Enlightenment, Edward Gibbon, in discussing The First Crusade, is persuaded that the soldiers had other ill motives for conquest that accompanied religious fervor, as a consequence of hearing about the richness of Muslim nations from the “tales of the pilgrims.” He describes their beguilement in this way:

The vulgar, both the great and small, were taught to believe every wonder, of lands flowing with milk and honey, of mines and treasures, of gold and diamonds, of palaces of marble and jasper, and of odoriferous groves of cinnamon and frankincense.²

Moreover, he paints a picture of the base instincts of the crusaders being tempted by the savor of the wine and the charm of the Greek women, and that the “tales” gave them the impression that even the most deprived of them would be enriched.

In the contemporary period, Karen Armstrong thinks that she was liberated from her immature perspective of the Crusades, leading her to see that they “actually butchered thousands of “infidels” during their holy wars.”³ Narrating her experience in Israel while doing research, Armstrong highlights that the various structures built by the Crusaders imply that thousands of Christians went to the Middle East and “established states and kingdoms” which became their “first colonies.”⁴ Additionally, she accepts the notion that the Crusades contributed to its present-day conflict.⁵

Many sincere lay people would agree with both beliefs, for they think that the Crusades were unprovoked attacks against the peaceful Muslims to convert them and take their loot.

However, Rodney Stark challenges this popular portrayal in his book God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (2010). With heavy reliance on his work, I intend to relay in this essay a summary of the Crusades from the seventh century Middle East, and from the First to the Fifth Crusade, and supply my personal insights afterwards.

The Middle East

Seventh-century Middle East were Christian territories that included Egypt, North Africa, Spain, southern Italy, and also various Mediterranean islands such as Sicily, Corsica, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta, and Sardinia.⁶ Before his death, Muhammad established an Arab state through the unification of the desert Bedouin tribes, amassing a military force significant enough to expand beyond Arabia.⁷ At that time, Byzantium and Persia were weakened due to their decades-long military conflict, posing a great advantage to the Muslims.⁸ As a consequence, they were able to conquer most of the Christian territories.⁹

Then, prior to the Crusades, the Christians were able to defeat the onslaught of Islamic forces in Constantinople and in the Battle of Tours¹⁰, and they fought back and reclaimed some of the territories under Muslim rule such as Italy and Sicily. The Byzantines regained control of the Mediterranean.¹¹

First Crusade

From the eighth to the tenth century, flocks of religious pilgrims were welcomed for the revenue they could generate in the Holy Land.¹² But despite this monetary advantage, many were murdered by Muslims as the Islamic conquests persisted until the 11th century. Stark cites Gerland of Thouars, Richard of Saint-Vanne, Ulrich of Breisgau, and Bishop Gunther of Bamberg to name a few examples.¹³

The whimsical dictatorship of Tariqu al-Hakim around this period is also notable. He required people to work at night and killed many people who served him, such as high officials, physicians, slaves, and his relatives. Moreover, he forced Christians to wear a four-pound cross around their necks and ordered the burning and confiscation of all Christian churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.¹⁴

Subsequently, the Seljuk Turks invaded Armenia, laying siege to the capital of Ani, and murdered the inhabitants of the city, even though they had already surrendered. Stark cites the Arab historian Sibt ibn Al-Gawzi to describe the brutally cold-blooded outcome: the victims’ bodies were so many that all the streets were blocked, and the city was also pillaged and burned.¹⁵

The Byzantines saw the need to respond to the Turks’ other massacres but were initially unsuccessful. The huge part of Emperor Romanus’ army which he prepared for two years abandoned him, resulting in his capture and a signed peace treaty with the Turks. He was met with betrayal upon his return to Constantinople, where his officials got him killed in a gruesome way.¹⁶ Michael V succeeded him, but he renounced his rulership, seeing that his incompetence merely led to insurrections. An aged general took command but later abdicated as well, which led to the rule of Alexius Comnenus — a brilliant and young commander. He wrote to Pope Urban II to start the First Crusade.¹⁷

Providentially, the Pope honored Alexius’ request to support Christianity and liberate The Holy Land. Many of the nobles and knights knew the bloody battles that awaited them, and they were aware that there were no great treasures that awaited in Palestine, that is why 85 to 90 percent of the Frankish Knights did not heed the call to Crusade, nevertheless, the Pope was able to gather many people for this mission.¹⁸ This remark on “no great treasures” is corroborated by Jonathan Riley-Smith when he points out that there is “very little evidence” that Crusaders returned wealthy. In fact, he says that “it was reported that many in the exodus from Palestine in the autumn of 1099 were impoverished by the time they reached northern Syria.”¹⁹ Nevertheless, the Pope realized this mission by visiting nobles, abbots, and bishops, and by preaching to many people about the Crusades. He recruited men who could preach the same to rally more support.²⁰ The statement that the Pope convened on the Council of Clermont claimed the exemption of all further penance of sin to anyone who participated in the Crusades “out of devotion alone, and not for the gaining of glory or money…”²¹ The same content can be read in his letters.²²

The penitentiary motivation proved persuasive as many responded to Pope Urban’s call and prepared themselves by raising funds. Stark mentions that the typical Crusaders needed to raise four or five times their annual income before they could go. The Pope even asked the richer Crusaders to subsidize those who lacked funds, and many nobles put a considerable number of knights on their payrolls. Some even sold their properties. For example, Godfrey of Bouillon sold the entire county of Verdun to King Philip of France. There were smaller scales of sales as well, which included “vineyards, mills, and forests, and even of peasants…”²³

The Pope made efforts to limit the Crusades to warriors and those who could support them, but not everyone heeded his advice. The People’s Crusade was led by Peter the Hermit, who, despite walking barefoot and wearing filthy clothes, was followed and regarded by many as someone holy. He received many gifts and was thought to be able to gather around 15,000 people. He also wanted to preach to the Germans, but Walter the Penniless, a well-known soldier, pressured him to hasten to their mission, hence their early arrival in Constantinople.²⁴ The People’s Crusade was very undisciplined and the fighters did not mind their own business. They pillaged before the Prince’s Crusade arrived. Without his command, Peter’s men attacked the Turks which led to their slaughter, as well as Walter’s death.²⁵

The German Crusade was led by Emicho of Leiningen. Stark comments that historians are divided on whether he was motivated by greed or by his belief that all non-Christians are enemies, in his murder of many Jews while on their way to join other Crusaders. Some bishops who got wind of his plot risked their lives in hiding the Jews, as in the case of Worms. And in towns without a local bishop, Emicho murdered thousands of them.²⁶ The Pope harshly condemned the attacks of the German Crusade against the Jews, and many of the knights in Hungary helped get rid of Gottschalk, Volkmar, and Emicho so that the German Crusade never reached Constantinople.²⁷

The darling of the First Crusade was the Princes’ Crusade, the one to achieve victory. Three of the five major contingents were led by sons of kings whose knights were well-armed and well-trained.²⁸ They were Hugh of Vermandois, Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemond of Taranto, Raymond IV of Toulouse, and Robert, Duke of Normandy.²⁹ Alexius considered them to be dangerous barbarians, and they thought of him and his court as malevolent plotters. Threatened by this force, Alexius had them vow loyalty to him, and he expected their oaths to give him exclusive rights to the territories that would be recovered on their way to Jerusalem. With that said, the Crusaders were expecting him to lead the charge to Jerusalem. Instead, he sent a small army to accompany them into Asia Minor and recover a recently lost Byzantine territory. However, after fulfilling the Crusaders’ end of the bargain, Alexius abandoned them by not sending any army for their quest to Jerusalem. The Crusaders were left to fend for themselves and go through the most difficult battle ahead. This started the hostilities between the East and West.³⁰

Despite the betrayal, the Crusaders went on to battle; and although outnumbered, they were invincible. Their route from Constantinople was to Nicaea, Dorylaeum, Iconium, Caesarea, Marash, Antioch, Latakia, Tyra, Jaffa, and then Jerusalem, and they defeated many Turks along the way.³¹ When they were already in Jerusalem, they prepared by making ladders and siege machines, such as portable towers. At this moment, six Christian ships arrived in Jaffa which provided them with food and materials they needed to make siege machines. While they were waiting for these to be completed, a priest received a vision of promised victory if the Crusaders would stop petty fighting and if they would fast and march barefoot around the city. The residents of Jerusalem mocked them for it, but they were not discouraged. Peter the Hermit ended the procession with a heartfelt sermon. Two days later, the siege machines were completed, and they began their attack on the night of July 13–14. On the night of the 14th, Raymond of Aguiler succeeded in placing their tower in the south wall, but they could not gain traction despite the fierce battle. Then the next morning, Godfrey of Bouillon was able to place their tower against the north tower. He was reported to be on top of the tower, with his squadron of crossbowmen shooting against the enemies. This made them gain control of the wall by noon, which led them to be able to place their ladders unhindered, and soon many of the crusaders were able to enter the city and fight in the city streets. The Muslim forces were overwhelmed and were utterly defeated.³²

Al-Afdal attempted to retake Jerusalem but was unsuccessful. The Crusaders discovered and took control of the Muslim army’s food supply and also launched a surprise attack against him and his army,³³ securing their victory. Many Crusaders went home while some remained, seeing the need to protect and fortify The Holy Land.³⁴

The aftermath of this is that the Crusaders that were left saw the need to protect The Holy Land so that their victory would be lasting. Originally, they assumed that the territories they got would just become Byzantine territory again, but the treachery of Alexius Comnenus made them see that they could not rely on him to defend the Holy Land. This made them establish the kingdom of Jerusalem, and also other minor crusader kingdoms, such as Edessa, Antioch, and Tripoli.³⁵ They also made fortresses to make it easier for them to defend themselves with only a few knights available.³⁶ The military orders, such as the Knights Templars and the Knights Hospitallers were also founded to defend the kingdom of Jerusalem.³⁷

Second Crusade

The fall of Edessa was the impetus for Pope Eugene III to call the Second Crusade. Although it did not get a lot of response, the Pope ingeniously let Bernard of Clairvaux take charge. Since he was regarded as the most powerful, persuasive, and revered man in Europe, many people were added to their ranks who were entranced with the vision to “take up their cross” and join the crusades.³⁸ Now, this crusade led to the horrendous murder of the Jews in the Rhine Valley. Fortunately, Bernard put a stop to it. He was reported to have said, “It is fitting that you go forth against Muslims. However, anyone who attacks a Jew and tries to kill him it is as though he attacks Jesus himself.”³⁹

The new Byzantine emperor, Manuel Comnenus, made a treaty with the Seljuk sultan of Konya, and this treachery led to the catastrophe of the crusade. Like the old emperor, he pressured the German contingent to make haste to cross into Asia Minor. He also provided the German contingent with Byzantine guides that led them to a Muslim ambush, which led to their bloody massacre.⁴⁰ The French contingent, on the other hand, despite being in Byzantine territory, was still attacked by the Seljuk Turks beyond Ephesus. Stark comments that historians suggest that the emperor conspired with the Seljuk Turks. This was confirmed by the emperor promising the French contingent that they would be ferried by a Byzantine fleet to safely land them West of Antioch, however, the fleet that was sent was too small to accommodate them, which resulted in the demise of many of the crusaders and the end of the Second Crusade.⁴¹

When Saladin rose to power, he was not able to take Jerusalem when Baldwin IV was the king of Jerusalem (the king with leprosy). When Baldwin IV died, Saladin was able to take Syria and Edessa.⁴² The Byzantine emperor, then in 1185, made a treaty with Saladin to join forces against Christians in The Holy Land and the new Crusades.⁴³ In September, Saladin was able to arrive at Jerusalem and made a siege on it. When he was able to make a breach to the wall, the Christian fighters asked for surrender terms, so that they could be spared and the women and children would not become slaves. Saladin accepted in exchange for ten gold pieces for each man, for two women or ten children to be counted as one man, and for all the poor to be spared for 30,000 besants.⁴⁴ Although this happened, we need to be aware that because of Saladin’s treaty with the Byzantine Emperor, the Greek residents were already ready to betray the city and open the gates. This is the reason why Saladin converted the Christian churches in The Holy Land from Latin to Greek Orthodox, as part of their agreement in 1189 with Emperor Isaac.⁴⁵

With that said, Saladin being “merciful” is not the full picture. Stark notes that Jerusalem was the exception of Saladin’s butchering of adversaries. For example, in the Battle of Hattin, Saladin was depicted by his secretary, Imad ed-Din as showing a dark glee when he let various people, such as scholars, Sufis, ascetics, etc., to execute each of his prisoners and behead them.⁴⁶

When Conrad of Montferrat arrived at Tyre, he was able to defeat Saladin not only in their first siege but also in the second attack when Saladin tried to bait him into attacking his Egyptian navy, so that he could send his troops against the city. Since Conrad was able to lead his knights to charge out the gates and surprise Saladin’s army, they were also able to set his siege engines on fire, which forced Saladin to retreat.⁴⁷ This made Conrad become famous throughout Europe and made him selected as king of Jerusalem later on.⁴⁸

Third Crusade

The Third Crusade was called by Pope Clement III, with the English contingent led by the king of England, Richard the Lionhearted, and with Philip Augustus of France, and the German contingent led by the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa.⁴⁹

At this time, Emperor Isaac entered into a mutual defense treaty with Saladin. When the German contingent arrived in their territory, Emperor Frederick sent the bishop of Münster to the Byzantine court to arrange passage to The Holy Land. But Emperor Isaac imprisoned them and gave their horses and equipment to Saladin’s representatives. When Frederick and his army went into Byzantine territory, Emperor Isaac sent irregular forces to dispatch them. This caused Frederick to inflict substantial casualties against the Byzantines and charge toward Constantinople.

Emperor Isaac tried to save face by sending a letter stating that everything was under control, but since he requested for backup troops in the same letter, Saladin did not send any. The Orthodox bishops who favored Saladin out of hatred against the Latin Christians informed him of the grave situation.⁵⁰ Frederick seized Adrianople and even planned to siege Constantinople. But Emperor Isaac signed a peace treaty with them and gave them free passage and supplies.⁵¹ Unfortunately, on their way to Antioch, Frederick fell from his horse crossing the Saleph river and drowned. Although he was succeeded by his son, the crusade of the German contingent ended as they were demoralized to the point that many just went back home. The army shrunk to five thousand, and then when they reached Jerusalem, it shrunk to three hundred.⁵²

Unlike the German contingent, since Saladin was not able to capture the Christian ports, Richard the Lionhearted and Philip Augustus of France decided to sail to The Holy Land.⁵³ Philip Augustus arrived first in Tyre, but Richard’s treasure ship had to stop in Cyprus because of a storm. This island was controlled by Isaac Comnenus, a Byzantine rebel and a tyrant who enjoyed raping women and torturing the rich. He seized Richard’s treasure, crew, and troops. He agreed with Richard to return everything, but when he felt secure in his fortress, he broke his word, which enraged Richard, resulting in the island being conquered and the celebration of the local population. He agreed to surrender to Richard provided that he would not lock him up in irons. Richard “kept” his promise by locking him up in silver chains. This conquest became the Crusader naval base.⁵⁴

Richard then joined Philip Augustus in the siege of Acre, which led to the Muslims’ surrender. Having to address political concerns in France, and also suffering from dysentery, Philip Augustus left Richard with several thousand troops and the funds needed to pay them.⁵⁵

Richard then marched towards Jerusalem. Showing his brilliance as a commander, he was able to keep his knights, infantry, and crossbowmen in check. They were so disciplined that the Muslim army could not break their formation and suffered great losses. This made Saladin’s Muslim army reluctant to face Richard’s army. However, despite the great advantage, Richard did not try to get Jerusalem. He recognized that it was a military liability since his army would need a large garrison and a safe corridor to the sea, which Jerusalem lacked. So Saladin only had Jerusalem by default. A treaty allowing Christian pilgrims to enter Jerusalem was signed.⁵⁶

Fourth Crusade

The Fourth Crusade was infamous for the sack of Constantinople.⁵⁷ Pope Innocent called for this crusade, but was ignored. The cleric Fulk of Neuilly helped in preaching this crusade which made people take the cross. However, the preparations for this crusade were different. Before, they always went to The Holy Land. But since they recognized that the armies that sent troops to The Holy Land were from other powerful nations, they decided to attack Egypt by sea.⁵⁸ So they asked Venice to provide the needed naval power, and after fulfilling Venice’s condition to conquer the rebel city Zara back into submission⁵⁹, the Venetians joined their ranks to make up for the lack of manpower.⁶⁰

Then the exiled Byzantine prince, Alexius, proposed to the Crusaders that if they would help him recover the throne, he would pay “them two hundred thousand silver marks, supply all provisions for their expedition against Egypt, reinforce the expedition with ten thousand Byzantine troops, submit the Greek Church to Rome, and then permanently station five hundred knights to augment the forces of the Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land.”⁶¹ The offer was attractive, not merely because of its generosity, but Stark comments that it also provided the best solution to the instability in the region since the primary responsibility of security would fall on Byzantium, which was closer if the threat of Egypt was to be removed.⁶² The crusaders were successful in their agreement and Alexius was crowned Emperor Alexius IV. At first, he paid his side of the bargain in installments, but this angered his subjects because they hated the Latins with contempt. So Alexius IV shifted in his position, deciding not to pay his side of the bargain anymore, and he sent ships against the Venetian fleet, but they were defeated. A coup in the palace happened and Alexius IV was strangled to death with a bowstring.⁶³ Due to scarce food or money, the Crusaders sacked the city and divided the spoils among themselves.⁶⁴ There were some rape and murder that happened, but the casualties they inflicted were really low. The “sacking” was really more on their sacks being full of the spoils⁶⁵. With the city at their mercy, they installed Baldwin of Flanders as the new emperor in Byzantium. The crusaders agreed to remain there to defend him until 1205, then they canceled their plans to attack Egypt and went home.⁶⁶

Fifth Crusade

This crusade pushed through with the plan to conquer and rule Egypt. Pope Honorius III was able to convince Duke Leopold VI of Austria and King Andrew II of Hungary to join the crusade and lead the armies.⁶⁷ Stark comments that this may have been the largest force yet to be assembled for a Crusade, that they far outnumbered the capacity of the ships that were able to transport them.⁶⁸ Although delayed (King Andrew went home because of illness), they eventually reached the harbor of Damietta and started the attack on Egypt.⁶⁹

The Pope sent Cardinal Pelagius of Albano, which was counterproductive since he liked to threaten those who disagreed with him with excommunication. Stark comments that this man brought the failure of the Fifth Crusade.⁷⁰ The sultan of Egypt Al-Kamil was frightened by a conspiracy and deserted his army. The Muslims proposed terms offering Jerusalem and a 30-year peace treaty provided that they leave Egypt. The military leaders wanted to accept it, but Pelagius did not accept the arrangement.⁷¹ Stark comments that Pelagius ignored the fact that their army was shrinking because many of the Crusaders were going back home–and the Egyptian army was being reinforced by Syria and other Islamic powers.⁷² The Muslims later attacked, successfully inflicting heavy losses on the Crusaders, but they still sought a treaty with the Crusaders. The Christian sentries noticed that Damietta was abandoned, so they took the city without opposition. Pelagius took control of the city, and King John sailed back to Acre. Many of those who left were replaced by archbishops and bishops who were inept military leaders. They were unable to impose discipline in Damietta, and could not even convince the army to fight the Egyptians.⁷³ When the Germans and King John returned, Pelagius started a new campaign, but he failed because he did not listen to the advice of experienced military men and Alice, the dowager queen of Cypress. Finally, Pelagius realized his dangerous predicament and sought terms and agreed to an 8-year armistice, provided that both sides released their prisoners and the Crusaders left Egypt. This was a worse bargain compared to the previous terms because Jerusalem being surrendered was not part of the agreement anymore.⁷⁴

Stark comments that within several weeks of this time, King Louis IX recovered from an illness and took up the cross again. He said that this crusade was the best organized, best financed, and best planned of all the Crusades and that the king was revered throughout Europe for his holiness, which made him canonized as Saint Louis. Nevertheless, he was still defeated in Damietta and also in Tunis.⁷⁵ Stark adds that this made many in Europe become disillusioned about crusading.⁷⁶ If a leader that is immensely brilliant and saintly, was not able to do it, then no one could.

At this time, a new threat was emerging, which were the Mamluks, led by Baibars. He had seized the throne when the first Mamluk sultan of Egypt was assassinated. After building his army, he sacked Nazareth and destroyed their famous church by trickery: he gave terms of surrender to those defending the town of Arsuf, which he later broke, subjecting all people to slavery there. He did the same in Safed, beheading all the Templars. He slaughtered all the inhabitants in Jaffa. Then he failed in negotiating with Antioch for surrender terms since they had become aware of his previous treacheries. But their second attack in Antioch destroyed the walls, and he committed an orgy of torture, murder, and desecration. He even bragged about the massacre of Antioch in detail and sent it as a letter to Count Bohemond VI, ruler of Antioch, who was absent when they conquered the land.⁷⁷ Stark cites him saying:

You would have seen your knights prostrate beneath the horses’ hooves, your houses stormed by pillagers…You would have seen your Muslim enemy trampling on the place where you celebrate Mass, cutting the throats of monks, priests and deacons upon the altars, bringing sudden death to the Patriarchs and slavery to the royal princes. You would have seen fire running through your palaces, your dead burned in this world before going down to the fires of the next.⁷⁸

Although Baibars was victorious in Antioch, he did not attempt to conquer the remaining Christian kingdoms located along the coast. These areas were heavily fortified and well-defended, and it was hard to lay siege on them because of their proximity to the sea. He was also worried about Louis IX.⁷⁹ The last thing that Baibars did was conquer the Hospitaller fortress, Krak des Chevaliers, then he agreed to have a ten-year peace treaty with Prince Edward.⁸⁰

Personal Insights and Observations

• It is undeniable that wickedness was present in the Crusades, from the First and Second which saw the murder of the Jews; to the Fourth, which witnessed the sacking of Constantinople and the raping of some women and murder of some lives. By the Fifth Crusade, we can also see how a bully Cardinal can be counterproductive to a mission. As Christians, we must not defend but acknowledge the wickedness committed by the Crusaders. The Scriptures reveal and teach that all human beings are made in the image of God (imago Dei). Because of this, people ought not be raped nor murdered, even if the person was a Jew. Jews should not be hated nor condemned for the sole reason of their ethnicity. We are to remember Jesus Christ, our Lord when He took the form of a servant, He was born a Jew, a son of David, a son of Abraham. To hate the Jew for being a Jew is an anti-Christian act.
• Moreover, pride also, especially among the clergy is dangerous and would lead to their fall. An exhortation to our Christian leaders is to not value spiritual gifts at the expense of godly character. Our leaders ought to have both. If in case, the candidate may lack the intellectual brilliance and eloquence in speech, the church should decide in favor of those who genuinely care for the things of God — those who seek Christ above all things.
• The Sack of Constantinople is not an unprovoked attack from the Crusaders:
• In the First Crusade, although Alexius Comnenus requested Pope Urban II to support Christianity and liberate the Holy Land, he never really cared for the Holy Land. He was just concerned with getting the other territories for himself but he left the Crusaders to fend for themselves towards the Holy Land. In addition, he treated the Turkish commander and the Sultan’s family as distinguished guests, and even made secret deals with the Turks. He even wrote a letter in the Fatimid court in Cairo that denied any associations with the crusaders.
• In the Second Crusade, Emperor Manuel Comnenus worked with the Seljuk Turks to defeat the Crusaders. His treachery led to the annihilation of the German contingent, and the deaths of many of the French contingent, which led to the failure of the Second Crusade. The Greek residents were even willing to betray Jerusalem to open the gates to Saladin.
• In the Third Crusade, Emperor Isaac entered a mutual defense treaty with Saladin.
• In the Fourth Crusade, Emperor Alexius IV did not pay for his side of the bargain and also attacked the Venetian fleet of the Crusaders to please his subjects who hated the Latins with contempt.
• The lesson here is that if Constantinople were not treacherous against the Crusaders, aside from the sacking not happening, they would have recovered their lost territories for themselves, maintained the prestige of their emperor, solved the instability in the region in dealing with Muslim invaders, and the mission of the crusaders would have been much easier. When Christians who share a Judeo-Christian heritage betray one another, it becomes an acid that threatens Western civilization. The mission becomes more difficult, and it is easier for the enemy to triumph.
• It is not true that the Crusaders were imperialist colonizers who were motivated by land, loot, and converts. They were not imperialist colonizers for they were not forcing a weaker society into an unfair arrangement. Rather, they were liberating the once-Christian territories that were conquered by Islamic imperialists. The fortifications that Karen Armstrong saw in Israel were not “colonies,” but structures that the Crusaders built to further sustain the victory of the First Crusade. They were also not motivated by land, loot, and converts, for the Frankish Knights who were motivated by riches did not join the Crusade, and those that joined pushed through even if they knew that there were no great treasures that awaited and that bloody battles were apparent. Many of the Crusaders also put their lives and economic prosperity at risk. Many sold their own properties, and there are those who generously subsidized those who were not able to raise enough funds.

Conclusion

The Crusades were not a perfect movement, but everything was not all bad either. It was a belated response against Islamic imperialism, and although the First Crusade was a success, the subsequent crusades were not able to preserve that victory and remained failures. Nevertheless, it is important because without it, Europe may have been dominated by Islam and there might have been no Western civilization.

References:

1. Jonathan Riley Smith, “Truth is the First Victim,” Crusades-Encyclopedia (May 2005). https://archive.md/20120723190617/http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/truthisthefirstvictim.html
2. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Hans — Friedrich Mueller (NY: Random House, 2003), 1055.
3. Karen Armstrong, Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact On Today’s World (NY: Anchor Books, 2001), xi.
4. Armstrong, Holy War, xii.
5. Ibid., xiv
6. Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (NY: HarperOne, 2010), 9.
7. Stark, God’s Battalions, 12.
8. Ibid., 14.
9. Ibid., 15; 17; 18; 19; 21; 22; 23.
10. Ibid., 36–44.
11. Ibid., 47–54.
12. Ibid., 87.
13. Ibid., 92.
14. Ibid., 90–91.
15. Ibid., 94.
16. Ibid., 95–96.
17. Ibid., 96.
18. Ibid., 114
19. Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History (NY: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014), 40.
20. Stark, God’s Battalions, 100–105.
21. Ibid., 108.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 112.
24. Ibid., 115–117.
25. Ibid., 123–125.
26. Ibid., 126.
27. Ibid., 127.
28. Ibid., 127–136.
29. Ibid., 128.
30. Ibid., 137–138.
31. Ibid., 143.
32. Ibid., 156–157.
33. Ibid., 160–161.
34. Ibid., 161.
35. Ibid., 164.
36. Ibid., 163.
37. Ibid., 173–181.
38. Ibid., 185.
39. Ibid., 187.
40. Ibid., 188–189.
41. Ibid., 190.
42. Ibid., 196.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 198.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid., 200.
47. Ibid., 202.
48. Ibid., 203.
49. Ibid., 203–204.
50. Ibid., 205.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid., 205–206.
53. Ibid., 206.
54. Ibid., 207.
55. Ibid., 208.
56. Ibid., 208–210.
57. Ibid., 211.
58. Ibid., 213.
59. Ibid., 213–214.
60. Ibid., 214.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., 215–216.
64. Ibid., 216.
65. Ibid., 216–217.
66. Ibid., 217.
67. Ibid., 220–221.
68. Ibid., 221.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., 222.
71. Ibid., 223.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid., 224.
74. Ibid., 225.
75. Ibid., 226.
76. Ibid., 229.
77. Ibid., 230–231.
78. Ibid., 231–232.
79. Ibid., 232.
80. Ibid., 234.